Shoppers have long been looking for ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket – and for good reason: our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of agricultural emissions come from raising cows on factory farms to sell hamburgers, steaks and other beef products. Beef production yields two and a half times more greenhouse gases like a lamb, and almost nine times as much as chicken or fish; its carbon footprint compared to other protein sources such as cheese, eggs and tofueven higher.
If you want to have a smaller impact on the planet, try eating less beef. (Just try this!) Otherwise, a series of recent lawsuits aim to make it easier for consumers to understand what is sustainable and what is greenwash, challenging the world's largest meat processors on their climate messaging.
Safe · No tax deduction · Takes 45 seconds
Safe · No tax deduction · Takes 45 seconds
Tyson, which produces 20 percent of the beef, chicken and pork in the United States, agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 and stop calling its beef products “climate-friendly” unless independently verified.
In 2024, Tyson was sued by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit organization dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group argued that Tyson's statements were false and misled consumers. (The nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the suit.
“We've landed in a place that seems to be satisfactory in terms of what we were able to get out of the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney for Earthjustice's Sustainable Food and Agriculture program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case.
Under the agreement provided by Earthjustice, for the next five years Tyson cannot repeat previous statements that the company has a plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or make new ones unless they are verified by a third-party source. Likewise, Tyson also cannot market or market in the United States any beef products labeled as “climate-friendly” or “climate-friendly.”
“We believe this provides the consumer protections we sought in the lawsuit,” Apfel said.
According to Leila Yow, a climate program fellow at the Farm and Trade Policy Institute, a nonprofit research group specializing in sustainable food systems, the agreement is “an important victory in the fight against climate greenwashing from industrial agriculture.”
In the original complaint filed in D.C. Superior Court, EWG argued that Tyson never even defined “climate-friendly beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Tyson and EWG must now meet to agree on a third-party expert to independently vet any future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims from the meatpacker.
After the settlement, Apfel went even further in his conversation with Grist, saying that the term “climate smart” has nothing to do with describing beef coming from the industrial food system.
“In the context of industrial beef production, this is an oxymoron,” the lawyer said. “You simply can't have sustainable beef. Beef is the highest-emitting staple food. Even if you cut its emissions by 10 percent or even 30 percent, it still wouldn't be a climate-smart choice.”
A Tyson spokesman said the company “has a long-standing core value of being stewards of the land, animals and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The settlement decision was made solely to avoid expense and distraction from ongoing litigation and does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing on the part of Tyson Foods.”
The settlement with Tyson follows another recent greenwashing complaint, this time against JBS Foods, the world's largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging that the company was misleading consumers by claiming it would achieve net-zero emissions by 2040.
Earlier this month, James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the meat giant. As a result of the settlement, JBS is required to update its communications to characterize achieving net-zero emissions by 2040 as an idea or goal rather than a specific company plan or commitment.
These two settlements highlight how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts.
“Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely been able to fly under the radar of any reporting requirements,” said Yow of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agri-food companies share their emissions, the disclosure is often voluntary, and processes for measuring and reporting impacts are not standardized.
This results in emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” Yow said. She recently wrote a report ranking of the world's 14 largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments, including reporting efforts methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and Jay Bies equal lowest score from all 14 companies.
The factory farming industry “has built its business model on secrecy,” said Valerie Baron, national policy director and senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron emphasized that increasing transparency among meat and dairy companies is an important first step to holding them accountable.
Yo agreed. She argued the upcoming climate disclosure rules V California And European Union have the potential to lead policy efforts to measure and limit emissions in the food system. More and better data could lead to “better collective decision-making with policymakers,” she said.
But she added: “We need to really know what we're talking about before we can address some of these things.”
Editor's Note: Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council are Grist advertisers. Advertisers have no role in Grist's editorial decisions.
